Is Hillary Clinton in Trouble?


Sanders is going to poll well and not win the nomination. Hell, I'll vote for him. However, there's nothing to see here.
Salon HATES Hillary Clinton, so I take anything they say about her with a whole mountain of salt. Bernie Sanders has wonderful progressive ideas, but he won't win the nomination. He may well push Hillary to the left, which is a good thing.
Sanders is a progressive like Sawant so I imagine Seattle democrats are split, with the majority of property owners leaning towards Hillary.
That would be pretty rich if Sanders could pull the rug out from under Clinton the same way Obama did it in 2008. Likely a disaster because I can't see Sanders winning the general.

I have nothing against Hillary Clinton, really. But her career contains no evidence of political talent and at least two examples of stark incompetence: the 2008 campaign and then her stewardship of the health care reform debacle of the early 1990s. Perhaps its a shame that she subordinated her own ambitions to those of her husband's and so never had the opportunity to develop the skill.

I'm rooting for her because I don't feel I have any alternative.
I don't see how Hillary can lose the nomination, and I really love the way her campaign has pivoted towards more populist issues lately. And, I won't have any trouble supporting her in the general election. But, until she wraps up the primaries, Bernie has my vote and my donations.

While it's unlikely Bernie can beat Hillary in the primaries, I actually think he would poll better in the general election. I'm having trouble picturing this sexist nation voting for a woman President. Besides, the Republicans have worked very hard to paint pragmatic centrism as synonymous with left-wing socialism, so... Maybe they've done the hard work to prepare Americans to vote for the real article!
As much as I would love to see a true Progressive Liberal in the White House, it's simply an unrealistic expectation; presidents aren't elected by either end of the political spectrum, but by the middle, and I think Sanders is too far to the Left to appeal to swing-voters.
@5 coulda said the same thing word for word.
Bernie Sanders 2016!
Bernie has been fighting for the middle class and minorities for all his career. Look at his voting records, and judge for yourself! Watch him on the campaign trail. Listen to him answer questions from average citizens. Find videos of him from years ago, and one can see how consistent he remains.
Agree with Bernie Sanders, or not, lets agree with him to get these debates started, so the candidates can defend their positions!…
I love most of what Sanders has to say, and think it's great that he's in the race. But, no, she's not in trouble and he's no threat to her. Wishful thinking on the part of the media that dislikes her and hates races without drama.
I love me some Bernie Sanders, but Jesus: has Hillary even started spending on her campaign yet?
COMPTE @6 is correct. When was the last time and extreme-right or extreme-left candidate was elected president? Not in 100 years. Although it has traded off periodically between republicans and democrats, all have been center-leaning candidates within their own party in their own time. A candidate from the extremes of either party has little chance of winning a national election. Swing voters almost always swing toward the less extreme candidate.

Far-left or far-right candidates can win local elections (see: Kshama Sawant, for example), but the larger the voting block, the more centrist the winner usually is. Even state-wide senate races tend to be more centrist than district congressional races.

I like some of the things Bernie Sanders has to say, but he has zero chance of becoming our next president.
All of my teacher friends in Seattle are all looking at Bernie as the one. Hillary is too cozy with Arne Duncan, the charter school hedge funders, the Waltons, and various other ed deform entities. They see her as a continuation of what we've already got.
Lots of people said that Obama had zero chance of becoming our next president. And, of course, all the pundits said Dewey would trounce Truman.

It's way too early to call this. I donated some money to Sanders the day I heard he was a candidate, not because I knew he'd win, but because I want him to win. Or at least push the current batch of timid Democratic politicians away from their bad habit of right-wing appeasement.
Bernie Sanders 2016 = George McGovern 1972. I like Sanders a lot. If he's the dude, I'll vote for him. But I can't see him winning. And for me, a Democratic win is the most important thing, even if the winner is a relatively compromised candidate like Hillary Clinton. People on the left side of the center always underestimate the power of winning consistently, because it hasn't happened in such a long time.

The most important thing that FDR did was to keep winning elections. It's only by staying in power that you can put your stamp on things. Just look at Bernie Sanders's own career as mayor of Burlington. After he won the first time, all the business people tried to stonewall him like the they did to Mike McGinn here in Seattle. But unlike McGinn, he managed to win a second term, and at that point, the business folks realized they'd probably have to deal with him long-term. He ended up serving 4 terms as mayor.

The Democrats have not held the presidency for more than two terms since Truman left office.

The Republicans know this. They know they can stonewall for 8 years. They also know that once they retake the presidency they can destroy in one or two year what it takes 8 years for the Democrats to build. It's like a related rates problem in calculus, with the water in the sink flowing in and draining out.

The only way to fight those tactics is to keep winning the presidency. Eventually, the Republicans won't be able to stonewall anymore, because it will finally be obvious who is to blame. The longer we can hold the presidency, the better off the Democrats will also be in terms of demographic trends that favor the Democrats. The Democrats also increase their odds of being able to name some better people to the US Supreme Court.

So try to be like F. Scott Fitzgerald. Be a first rate intellect. Be capable of holding two conflicting thoughts in your head at the same time without going crazy. Support Hillary at the national level, work for more progressive candidates elsewhere.

If we replay 1972 or 2000 again in 2016, it's going to be a nightmare for our country, and the left will just be playing right into the hands to the Republicans. That's my humble opinion.

Bernie Sanders, like Ralph Nader, is not Barak Obama, who is a rock star. He's a great artist. But he's not a rock star. He might be good at the Paramount. But his message has too many subtleties for a big arena.

Hillary may be kind of a tired old rock star compared to Obama. But like Fleetwood Mac, she's still an arena rock star with a battle-hardened crew who knows how to dial it up for the large venues you have to play to become president.
Clinton is unlikeable

She hasn't a teensy bit of husband's charisma.
@15 The only way a left-wing progressive populist can win is if one of those Republican extremist right-wing, homophobic, God-bothering misogynists runs against him.

So, face it, things are looking up.

McGovern was running against a sitting President, who while a loathsome human being at least wasn't a theocrat. Bernie would have an easier job because he'd be facing a far less weighty opponent.

Try four years earlier.

1968. Eugene McCarthy takes on party favorite Hubert H. Humphrey and starts to eat into his support in the primaries by using a radical leftist campaign fueled by youth.

After McCarthy won 42 percent of the vote in the Demoratic primary, the contest changed. On March 31, 1968, President Johnson announced that he would not run for re-election. Two days later, LBJ received only 35 percent of the votes in the Wisconsin primary, to McCarthy's 56 percent.
In 1968, winning the primaries did not necessarily win delegate votes at the national convention. The delegate selection process was often quite separate from the popular vote, and usually controlled by the state party.

Consequently, McCarthy only received 23 percent of the 2622 votes at the convention in August. Vice President Hubert Humphrey, a former Senator from Minnesota who replaced LBJ as the candidate of the party establishment, got the nomination on the first ballot with 67 percent. Torn by dissent, the Democrats lost the Presidency in November by a razor thin margin.…
Bernie has a lot of grassroots support in the Democratic Party, and not just in Seattle. I think he could win the caucus next year. The buzz among activists is much more on his side than it was with Obama eight years ago, in my experience.
In the end, the Democratic Party will not throw away a winnable election by nominating a left-wing socialist. And the polls that just came out today show Hillary beating not only Bernie but all leading Republican candidates. Just two words -- Supreme Court -- explain why progressives cannot withhold their support for Hillary when she is nominated. Caring more for your pure liberal values than the grubby reality of winning elections is just a way to make sure that right-wingers dominate us all.
@11, I'd say that W was extreme right, but he spoke in broad centrist generalities to hoodwink a great deal of the voting public. Gave us Roberts and Alito and helped to facilitate a far reaching surveillance state. Fortunately, a democratic majority in Congress had barely enough stones to resist his worst impulses, e.g., social security privatization.

The elites are not so much anti far left or anti far right, they merely want a candidate that is pro-corporate, regardless of the wing and will eventually find a way to marginalize or destroy a candidate that isn't pro-corporate or pro corporate enough. The destroyed or marginalized one is usually a real deal far left or left guy (Edwards 2008 edition?) since their values of massive safety net/infrastructure spending don't jive with the priorities of the corporatists.
Uh, no. Not really. Bernie is a cool old fart but Wall Street and the CIA would kill him long before he became President.
The sad truth is...not one person running for President is anywhere close to the experience of the average American today.

No candidate has experienced poverty or near poverty in modern times.

No candidate is without wealth.

No candidate, or his children, want for a job to survive.

No candidate is struggling to pay for transportation or to maintain a car.

No candidate is homeless, or having to share quarters, or in fear of the next rent increase, or in dire need of purchasing a home. Many if not most have several homes and cars as do all of their children.

No candidate worries about having money to feed himself into the next month, or year.

No candidate relates to modern music, shows, popular culture.

No candidate seems to have any direct relationship with social media! Each and every one is insulated by handlers, and directs an image from the top down. No candidate shows any understanding of the great changes in technology over the last two decades. Each is tenuous with it, even though many adults their own ages are far in advance of them!

No candidate speaks in a language that shows understanding of the rights of non-whites, non "traditional" sexual, gender, political, ideological or theological roles.

All of these candidates are actors, chameleons and mimics when it comes to real world experience of the hardships of life, that the great, great majority have been forced to endure each and every day.
@18, thank you for that. Very interesting.
it's how many months until November 2016? 16? IDGAF now; it's summer!
Either of them as president will still face an uncooperative GOP congress. We as progressives have to vote in the midterms as well.
What really matters about a President is how popular they are and thus whether they can pull their party with them in Congressional elections. Congress is what either helps or kills the proletariat..
SEEN a Bernie Sanders yard sign? I HAVE a Bernie Sanders yard sign! I take it you haven't driven by my house lately.
I really don't want to vote for a guy who voted to protect gun manufactures from lawsuits and voted against the Brady Bill. I am much more excited to vote for Clinton.
@21: Name one corporation that is directly affecting your life in a negative way.
Here in Boston he's pretty popular. His views are actually quite mainstream and he has picked up some Republican support. He's totally focused on economic issues, and that has a lot of resonance with some Republicans and most Democrats.
Hi. I run the Seattle for Bernie Sanders page. If you view the "events" on our page, you will find our announcements for meet ups. There have been two, GREAT turnouts! And the next is on June 12, Sunday at the Royal Room at 3pm. Also, if anyone is interested in marching with us, we're meeting on 4th Ave between Cherry and Columbia. There will be more than 8 of us, but we could use a LOT more. Yard signs, t-shirts... they're coming. You can get some Bernie merch online and we're working to get a local operation churning out the goods. Stay tuned!

This is a grassroots movement in every sense of the word. We don't have an office, headquarters, boss or leader. There is power coming from several sources; the PDA, the Socialists, the unions, the artists, the "regular people"... If anyone can help with any of the aforementioned categories then JUMP RIGHT IN!! We'd love to have you! If you have ideas, comments or suggestions, please hop over to the page and lead me a PM or post a comment. Thanks so much for the mention!
@32 - I believe you meant July 12th.
Oh!! Thanks, it's been a long week already. YES! JULY 12th.
Oh, and a corporation that is affecting my life in a negative way? Boeing.
I love Bernie but I suspect he's getting so much attention now because he's the only not-Hillary in the race. There aren't any other candidates to talk about and everyone is sick of talking about Clinton so they're gravitating towards the only alternative. If it came down to Bernie vs Hillary he might win a few states, but that won't be the case in a few months. It's June, you guys. June 2015.
@36 The caucus is in MARCH. MArch 26th. In the grand scheme, we are right on track. Bernie announced fairly recently, and it's a perfect time to start drumming up support. As I've been experiencing, people have been locked into apathy, complacency and apolitical attitudes towards politicians for VERY good reasons. We've been duped and abused by the system for decades and feel powerless to stop the corporate takeover of our government. "Lesser of evils" is the standard, right? So, not many people know that we need to flood the caucuses on March 26th (to support whichever candidate we are rooting for) and it's going to take a few months to get folks interested in the EXCITING world of politics, especially the party at the caucuses! Picture jury duty at the DMV, but without all the glitz and glamour. I'm going to be there!!
I would proudly vote for Bernie in the MD primary, were I not a registered Republican.

He could make a great president, but his chances are pretty damn near nil.
@38 I was a registered Liberal the first year I was a voter. Silly me. It was barely a shell of a husk of a completely toothless party, plus they never ran their own candidates, only cross-endorsed. I soon realized that if I wanted to vote in any primary that mattered, I had to register in THAT party. So, I did.

Unless you're all excited about voting in the Republican primary, what's the point of being registered in that party? If you're more interested in the Democratic primary, go change your party affiliation. It's as easy as filling out a new registration form.
The short answer is no, Hillary is not in trouble. The straw poll is irrelevant, Howard Dean, John Edwards, Fred Thompson and Herman Cain have all won the WI straw poll before, to give you an idea of how much that matters.

A couple small polls in a small neighboring state are an inkling of trouble, but Bernie first needs to WIN New Hampshire, not just get close. And NH should be the most favorable ground for him of any state in the country aside from Vermont, so if he can't do it by a convincing margin, he's unlikely to be able to win anywhere else. But he's 40 pts behind nationally and in Iowa, SC and FL.

However, Bernie might be doing well enough for Hillary to think that changing her message and strategy somewhat is a good idea. But that doesn't mean she's "in trouble."
Thank God most of the trollbait here is typically out of step with the rest of the country --- Bernie is steadily gaining in popularity, while Shillary is sinking rapidly.

You just cannot hide her neocon ways, and her support for the TPP, as much as she attempts to do the spinmeister routine, will just add to her troubles.

Sure, many of the rightwingers commenting here, who moronically view themselves as democrats as they are woefully uneducated and ill-informed, wrongly believe Clinton to be some sort of liberal, like the kind who attended George W. Bush prayer breakfasts with the rest of the neocons at his White House, or whose principal financial donors when she was a senator were Rupert Murdoch and the Tata Consultancy (major Indian jobs offshoring agency), or her super-neocon appointments when she was sec'y of state (Victoria Nuland and Marc Grossman), but the rest of America appears to be gradually awakening.
Soon to be America's first woman president:…

I think the inclination to try and predict elections based on previous elections (especially elections that happened before the internet) is strongly misguided. Elections are harder to call these days, like it or not. That being said, as much as I'd like Bernie in the white house, the Republicans are really good at rallying for underdog candidates and gerrymandering districts, so his path to winning the general is crowded with obstacles, and the thought of someone like Jeb! in the WH again just gives me the chills.
@39: The reasoning is that I know the democrats are not going to run someone who is completely insane or brain dead, so if it came down to it, I would rather help choose the GOP nominee than the democrat. The risk is much greater with republicans.

Not that the MD primary has mattered in the last 20 years. The nominee is typically already decided before those come around.
I'll just point out that Sanders has actual accomplishments to put on his resume, where Clinton has zilch.
Oh, God, 18 months of this? Shoot me now.

No, you idiots, Hillary Clinton is not going to lose the nomination to Bernie Sanders. And while Sanders obviously has better politics, the fact that the median vote in Congress will remain well to the right of either of them reduces the functional importance of that difference a considerable degree. Yes, Sanders is better than Clinton, but even if he could win it wouldn't really matter much.I know it's a boring race at this point and I can't really blame political journalists for making shit up to keep things interesting, but Dan, you can write about anything you like.